A major Rand Corp. study has come out confirming the wrongheadedness of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” strategy. In the first place, it’s not a conventional war; defeating terrorism is best done by disrupting networks and arresting leaders; in most cases, this is best carried out by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, not armies, according to the report’s authors. And terrorists should be treated as criminals, not holy warriors.
The idea of international police action against al-Qaida was mocked by the neoconservative crowd when presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry advocated it in 2004.
In fact, Kerry was dead-on.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
63 Comments
“The idea of international police action against al-Qaida was mocked by the neoconservative crowd when presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry advocated it in 2004.
“In fact, Kerry was dead-on.”
Wow, that would be a stinging indictment of the CON approach to fighting terror, if the CONs had any interest in facts.
As we’ve seen all too well in the last eight years, they don’t.
Again, the Dems. here are entitled to another “I Told You So!”
How does the RW feel to be Wrong so often, and on such important matters?
So
How were we supposed to arrest and prosecute all of those terrorists that we found, in Iraq and Afghanistan?
How can we arrest terrorists, if they find refuge in a hostile country?
Morever, isn’t OBAMA now saying that we need more military troops in Afghanistan?
Is Obama going against this Rand report?
You liberals are ridiculous.
By the way, the Rand group makes money by writing criques on policy.
Show me a single time that a consulting group ever came back and said, “You folks are all hunky dory, everything you are doing is right on target”??
I like the strategy of disappearing the al-queda leaders.
How many times has the US been hit by terrorists since 911? What was that? None you say?
Seems the strategy is working.
How many times has the U.S. been successfully hit pre=911, what, none you say. Seems we had a better strategy then, or just a more competent men at the helm.
“The idea of international police action against al-Qaida was mocked by the neoconservative crowd when presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry advocated it in 2004.” – Scholfield
—————
This is of course revisionism (lie)by our esteemed press, who on another thread, expects us to support them on the issue of not having to disclose sources.
In fact police and intelligence agencies were highly touted as a vital part of the war on terror. Just not the total package.
It should be easier for you’all to use 20/20 hindsight and see the F’ups of bush, but I guess you’re not only lacking forsight, but hindsight as well. They call that lack of vision as being blind, or in the dark.
Outlander lies again for his cause, claiming that international police action was not ridiculed by his side:
“But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Karl Rove Speech
Guess who the revisionist are?
Ha, that’s a pretty good line from Rove.
Where is the part about police and intelligence agencies not being considered a vital part of the war on terror?
Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote
–snip–
Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” used similar language.
“Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq.”
The Bush-Cheney campaign also announced it was releasing an ad highlighting Kerry’s comment.
Reuters reported that the new Bush commercial’s script asks “How can Kerry protect us when he doesn’t understand the threat?”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/
Our president. After 911. Guess I’m right again.
“Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me — the Office of Homeland Security.
And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend — Pennsylvania’s Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.
These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.)
Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I’ve called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.)
This is not, however, just America’s fight. And what is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded — with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.”
Where is the part about police and intelligence agencies not being considered a vital part of the war on terror?
Produce a source. At any rate, it’s a throwaway line when you’re talking about the most lawless administration in US history.
P.S. It’s also a red herring, since that’s the issue being discussed, nor did it in any way refute what Randy said.
Bush admin. said alot of times that if they didn’t see that Iraq was ‘center stage on the war on terrorism’ they didn’t understand the threat.
“not the issue”
Ah, how oonvienent: to make a wholly irrelevant point, Outie quotes Bush’s speech right after 9-11–before the full-on War to Create Terror was even underway.
“Law enforcement” under Bush meant listening in on attorney’s conversations, holding people indefinitely without charge, and the Patriot Act.
if I recall correctly, Bush once ridiculed the notion of “serving warrants on Al Qaeda” too.
Zell Miller (yes, I know he’s technically a Democrat) said to wild applause at the Republican National Convention:
“Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
“George W. Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
“From John Kerry, they get a “yes/no/maybe” bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
*****
Dick Cheney:
The fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans may have thought they could attack us with impunity because terrorists had done so previously. But if the killers of September 11th thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America and they did not know George W. Bush.”
(Terrorists had NOT done so previously. They were stymied, arrested and tried and imprisoned many times. But this is Bush-speak for the only thing that works is total war.)
“Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida’s key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.” —George W. Bush
See, war works. By the way, the figure that “three quarters of Al Qaeda’s leaders have been detained or killed” is total fabrication pulled straight from President Liar’s ass.
Beautiful snag, Rage.
“Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says.”
That really sums it up and puts the lie to outlanders’ ignorance.
Outlander asks, “Where is the part about police and intelligence agencies not being considered a vital part of the war on terror?”
I guess you don’t know what an “indictment” is, eh?
Well . . . that explains a lot . . .
CapnAmerica: Are you saying that the US “war on terror” did not include law enforcement the world over, intelligence agencies, and the military? Hmmm…?
“Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising”
Nothing has changed.
With the exception that under bush the al-quida has relocated the home base to Pakistan. Thanks to bush’s good buddy and ally, Musharaff.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, Outlander.
Commander Cod-Piece wasn’t doing what he should have to protect us from terrorism prior to 9-11 (”That was a Clinton thing”), and thanks to his somnabulance at the wheel, we got a massive Al Qaeda attack.
Then his answer was not to do what had worked in the past–slow, painstaking international police work–but to ridicule it in favor of a big, exciting INVASION, woo-hoo!
Oh, and a war that would really help out the oil industry too . . .
Yes, Clinton admin. warned bush’s that the biggest threat to America was terrorist. Bush ridiculed that, knowing that a ‘rogue nation with a wmd’ presented the biggest threat.
It’s so amazing how you libs are quick to say that the “war on terror” was wrong just because you finally got someone to say something that you agree with. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Al Quaeda is no longer attacking the U.S. like they use to, there’s one for the “war on terror”, a BIG one. I guess you would be happy if they were still attacking us here.
Remember when the MSM and it’s suck up libs were wanting us to get Saddam and when we finally did, they reported as though it was a loss for Saddam instead of a victory for the U.S.
Then they wanted to show that the surge wasn’t working but when it did, they just didn’t report anything. They finally had to admit it was working but I think that was only for a few days. Remember how many days we heard about Abu Graib. Once again, it is clear their agenda is in our defeat.
The evidence is right in front of your faces and you want to believe the Rand group. You are just so predictable.
I think the truth is, you couldn’t stand the fact that Bush won both times so the last thing you want is for us to win against the war because it might make Bush look good. Just like Obama & the MSM, you are more interested in your party winning the Presidential race than you are the citizens of the United States. When are you ever going to figure out that YOU are a citizen of the U.S. and so are your friends and family? Do you care about yourself and them or do you care about your political party more?
As for me, I care about the citizens of the U.S. more than I do some political party. They change their minds and viewpoints everyday. I would hate to have to check in and see on a daily basis where I stand just because I have to stand with my party more than my own values.
Yes, Clinton admin. warned bush’s that the biggest threat to America was terrorist. Bush ridiculed that, knowing that a ‘rogue nation with a wmd’ presented the biggest threat.
————
You left off part Phantom. “rogue nation with a wmd… that would hand it off to terrorists”…
Law enforcement eh?
It appears to me that every facet of Law Enforcement is involved in the war on terror.
We also send our international representation out in the form of the military, CIA, state department and other agencies out to do the field work and actual combat, negotiations etc.
Fighting terror is not and cannot be a unilateral attack.
To state that it is, is naive and reckless.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that most of us approved of the invasion of Afghanistan. I did myself for about 10 minutes, and considered it to be politically necessary. If we had done absolutely nothing except improve airport security we’d have been better off.
We could’ve done what Israel did after Munich, Make a list of those responsible and kill them, cant find them kill their families. Would have been a lot cheaper than what were doing now
Bush has only managed to drive the cockroaches from the bedroom into the kitchen. Not much of a success.
‘a rogue nation that would hand off a wmd to terrorist’ in my estimation, that would be Pakistan, not Iraq. 1) They actually have wmd’s!
2) They were the reason the Taliban flourished in Afghanistan!
3) They currently shelter al quida AND the Taliban!
In conclusion:
4) Bush got the wrong country!!
The Adults will set it right.
I beilive that it was also Pakistan that gave WMD’s too North Korea
“We could’ve done what Israel did after Munich, Make a list of those responsible and kill them, cant find them kill their families. Would have been a lot cheaper than what were doing now”
Maybe, but assasination is against current US LAW.
Apparently, invasion is not.
How many more times can liberals be right?
If only Pakistan had oil, bush Might have got it right, but he still would have went after Iraq, for the Family Feud Honor war.
If killing in Iraq was wrong, bush don’t wanta be right.
Wiretaps without a warrant are against the law too but that didn’t stop the government from doing that either
Also I beilive that the prohibition on assassination is for heads of state.
“Also I beilive that the prohibition on assassination is for heads of state.”
I believe you are correct there.
”
Wiretaps without a warrant are against the law too but that didn’t stop the government from doing that either”
True, and they have caught hell by many for it. So if assination was illegal, it would have been okay because it would have saved millions of dollars and thousands of lives?
We prosecuted the terrorists that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing, in a New York courtroom, convicted them, and sentenced them, some to life in prison. The World Trade Center is gone now, along with hundreds of Pentagon servicemen, hundreds of airline passengers, thousands of New York workers, firemen, and policemen, and 17 crewmen of the U.S.S. Cole.
Arab Muslims across the world danced and celebrated the loss of each life, each brick, each warship component.
We will not forget. We will not just send police and prosecutors again. We will make war until enough Abab Muslims are killed, captured, and demoralized to eliminate their threat entirely.
Then, maybe, we will seek peace.
The Democrats, and the media, will never tell the truth:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Of all the Satan-derived religions, athiesm is the one that gets in my craw the most. Them people are always after “logic” or some other proof that the LORD exists and is involved in our lives in some meaningful way.
Fact is, the only “proof” we have for God is that we each have some ability to sense him. We’ve all been told from birth that there is some type of God – the muslim have their moon god, the catholics have the queen of heaven, the hindu have that Shiva, etc.
Now we all know that these are false gods, but dang, at least it’s a god and because people have beliefs that they’ve been told from birth just lets me know that it has to be the truth – that there is God. I just happen to know that Jesus is the right one.
Martyrs didn’t get killed over a LIE! They knew the truth and stayed with it because they knew Jesus was real. Even the Muslims today are killing themselves to be martyrs because they know there is a afterlife. They might be wrong about the afterlife, but they definately know that something is there – why would they be willing to die for it if it was all a fake?
But these atheist come around and just ruin all our proof and point out crazy stuff. Well, maybe we don’t have “science” proof, but we all know the facts. Logic doesn’t have nothing to do with faith.
NO heads of state would’ve had a contract on them, as Al-Quida is not a state. Now, if you’re talking about Saddam, there might have been question as to putting a hit on him, however, after 9/11, they could’ve changed the law if the bought the bush b.s., about Saddam being a clear and immediate danger.
Parkay, just think of all those millions of yet to be born Iraqi babies bush killed with your blessing. They didn’t even get the chance to migrate from the ovaries, or be ejected from the testicles!
Phantom
Not only are you being childishly crude, you are also being medically, scientifically, and morally inaccurate.
Human life begins at conception.
The idea that the enire, complete human resided in either the man or the woman, prior to the sex act taking place, is a bit of a throwback.
And, yes, the ENTIRE human is created at conception.
From that moment forward, the DNA never changes.
Franklin
Posted July 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
Phantom
Not only are you being childishly crude, you are also being medically, scientifically, and morally inaccurate.
Human life begins at conception.
The idea that the enire, complete human resided in either the man or the woman, prior to the sex act taking place, is a bit of a throwback.
And, yes, the ENTIRE human is created at conception.
From that moment forward, the DNA never changes.
**************************************************************************
Sorry rossell, life begins at birth.
You can stop a lineage with one bullet.
Easy to see this thread has gotten off track, but what’s new?
Going after terrorists: Invading Afghanistan was the thing to do after 9/11 as they were sheltering the ones responsible: Al Quida. They, the Taliban were asked numerous times to turn over, or kick out the Al Quida network and OBL in particular. They were warned we would invade if they didn’t. They didn’t, we did. Pretty cut and dried.
Iraq, on the other hand, may have been sponsoring terrorists, but not on the level suggested by this administration. We had knocked out their ability to wage war when we kicked them out of Kuwait. Our starting a war with them was based on false and misleading info perpetrated by this administration, and had nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
As such, this administration, using every trick they could to make their decisions palatable to the American people, lost sight of the real terrorist networks still in place in Afghanistan. Leaving the Taliban to arise again and attack our troops.
We should be using the worlds police and intelligence networks to find and bring to justice those who lead the real terrorist networks still in place in the world. But we should still finish the job we started in Afghanistan. The Rand Corp study was dead on.
One thing the limbolites can’t seem to understand is the fact there would never have been a surge if Iraq was never invaded. Again, the cons can’t seem to understand bush and his cronies cherry-picked and falsified intelligence info so they could get congress to vote to allow bush to start this war with Iraq. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
With good investigative work, the military could play a role. Clinton knew that, bush not so much.
A few well placed missles could take them out in their sanctuary. But unlike when bush blew up a dozen diners at an Iraq restaurant, and the RW was silent.
Clinton caught hell for blowing up a night watchman, or was it janitor?
Nearly every major Democrat said that Saddam had to be removed.
Did you even look at this video link?
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
“Human life begins at conception” — Franklin
Why doesn’t it begin with copulation?
Why doesn’t it begin with ovulation?
Franklin is correct; many Democrats said Saddam had to be removed, but I don’t recall many calling for an all out invasion of Iraq. At any rate, I believe about 20 Senate Democrats voted agains the war resolution. Did any Republican? And anyway, it didn’t matter what they said. What mattered was what Bush said and did.
Damn, this is like arguing with a barking dog……..
I hate to post this again but, sigh, if Bush had waited just another few weeks to allow the Inspectors to do their job’s they would have proved what we all know now – no WMD – no threat to neighboring states – no threat to the US.
And the US would not have lost 4,200 brave soldiers and would not have spent $1 trillion.
It’s like arguing with a barking dog – lot’s of noise, but no discussion.
bush sure suckered them good.
How misleading of franklin, Clinton’s comments and his admin. were before he ordered missle strikes (apparently successful) against suspected military wmd sites.
Clinton ordered the strike Dec. 1998.
And you think that one missle strike could have completely destroyed Saddam’s WMD capability?
And, if you check, all of the Democrats in the video, posted above, talk about the FUTURE threat of Saddam, and they all indicate that Saddam would have continued to seek WMD’s for as long as Saddam remained in power.
What it didn’t get, it apparently persuaded Saddam, he better get rid of the rest.
Ofcourse, I recall the chorus of, Saddam’s no threat, Clinton’s wagging the dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ Bushs people saying Iraq’s not a threat
and my personal favorite Cheney on why invaded Iraq is a bad Idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
WASHINGTON – An administration official says President Bush has approved an order revising the rules governing spying, both in the United States and abroad, and lays out each of the 16 agencies responsibilities.
ADVERTISEMENT
The executive order maintains the decades-old prohibitions on assassination and human testing.
The order has been under revision for more than a year during a national debate about the proper balance between civil liberties and security, spurred by both the 9/11 attacks and Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. It was first created under the Reagan administration in 1981.
If the war on terror were to end today, every terrorist turn them in to the proper authorities, and Bush declare victory yet again and lower the threat levels to ’sleep peacefully’, who would win the presidential election?
There would be no need for a McCain who is tough on terror and national security, because there would be no war on terror and we would already be secure.
I don’t think the Republican party would perpetuate the ‘war on terror’, but I also do not think they want it to be over anytime soon.